🌲Get my free guide to DIY forest Management: thetimberlandinvestor.com/how-to-read-your-forest-an-intro-to-diy-forest-management 🍁Join SilviCultural for FREE today: silvicultural.com/sign-up/
Your channel has been a great refresher and expansion on what i learned in school. I mostly worked in urban settings and ecosystem restoration after graduation but I'm starting to incorporate more traditional forestry work as well. You've been a great help!
Question: I’ve noticed a significant percentage of my otherwise defect free Red Oaks have a split in the bark at the base of the tree extending three or four feet up the trunk. What causes this and what how badly is this going to impact marketability.
What a great book! Here in the UK, I would say the principal reasons for thinning softwoods being managed in a clearfell system are: to concentrate the volume growth on fewer stems so that the mean tree volume is greater, also to concentrate that growth on the trees with the best stem form (by selecting the removal of poorer form trees); to generate periodic revenue to smooth out cashflow I don’t really get your point about maximising photosynthetic material, because in a stand situation the trees’ growing canopies will usually occupy all the available space - it is just that by thinning you are reducing the number of those trees so you are increasing the synthetic material each of the remaining trees has, which has the same effect as my first point, that is, concentrating the growth on fewer trees so increasing the average stem volume (and thereby increasing the overall value because, up to a point, larger trees are worth more per unit volume).
It's the classic dilemma between growth per acre vs growth per tree. Canopies will fill in all available space, yes, but trees spaced further apart will increase the total foliar area by opening up the vertical vertex of space. In other words, there is going to be more surface area on a bundle of 3D cones than 2d circles. But yes, often maximizing growth per tree will come at the sacrifice of growth per acre for the reasons you describe (more open space=less foliage), although usually, maximizing growth per tree will also result in higher growth per acre after enough time. Almost always Id advise people to focus on growth per tree and managing foliage on the basis of live crown ratios of individual trees, but it still needs to be balanced with per acre growth.
@@thetimberlandinvestor OK yes, that is an interesting point about the 3D nature of the canopies, but another factor is the efficiency of a particular species at using the available light, which is why larch trees (tamarack in your part of the world) require a deeper crown and therefore need to be thinned more heavily to maintain individual tree growth than spruce or fir. Thinning is an inexact science, more of an art!
Thank you for this video. I'm currently starting the process of trying to rejuvenate a family member's hardwood stand. It was intensively logged almost 30 years ago, and the conifers have all but taken over the understory. Outside of a handful of promising patches, there are very few young hardwood stems. The conifers have grown in so tightly that even shade tolerant species like sugar maple and beech aren't having success, and the conifers themselves are all developing poorly. Anyone want to weigh in on the pros and cons of a total purge of the conifers, vs just thinning and leaving some of the prime specimens as the dominant understory trees? My concern with leaving any is that the fast growing conifers will simply outpace the hardwood stems, and we'll be back in the same position in another 10 years.
I think you’d be surprised how fast hardwoods can grow, and having those conifers for competition makes them grow straighter/fewer branches. Releasing any hardwoods too early will turn their upward growth to sideways growth, reducing their value. It might even depend on the soil - can’t make them grow where they don’t want to
@@neonnavajo Thank you. To address your point about the soil, before the logging took place, this was a naturally hardwood-dominant forest. And currently, anywhere that the conifers haven't taken all the light and space, the hardwood seedling/saplings are present. I don't believe the soil conditions are unfavourable to the hardwoods. My theory on why the conifers became the dominant understory tree is simple: deer. We don't have many farm fields out here to supplement the diet for whitetails. I believe the browsing pressure on the hardwood saplings is high. This led to the unbrowsed conifer saplings winning the competition for space and light. At this point, the hardwood seeds would be basically starting from scratch in most areas. But if I purge all the conifers this fall, then so will the residual conifer seeds. So they will be growing up together, and I can manage the mix/density in subsequent years. My concern is that the conifers would again win the fight for light and space, but you're saying that the hardwood seedlings should be able to hold their own? That sounds promising. Thank you! I guess the key is to try to manage the deer problem.
You can still get quality hardwoods from not thinning, it will just be slower. However, thinning at the wrong time will ensure none of your hardwoods will have a nice, clean stem.
@@thetimberlandinvestor When talking about broadleaves / hardwoods, the rule is that the with of the ring, plays no or little role for the technically quality of the wood. All of us should remember, that greed is the way to poverty. When tending a young stand of broad leaves, you should keep a high number of steems, to ensure, that branches are killed by the shadow from neighboring trees. In general you should aim for a clear bole, length as 1/3 of the total height of the mature tree. When we have a clear bole of this length - (Could be helped with artificial pruning of branches). From here you just thin hard / strong. In the first thinning I would aim for a remaining number of trees, not bigger than twice the number of trees to be clear cut in the end. Some will argue, that you will lose increment, by thinning this radical. Thats not case. The effect on the increment is that your primary trees - the one destined for a sawmill, each and every on will grow a little more. "Surplus" increment will happen in the ´2 story. The 2 story, should be tended by regularly harvest for energy wood. The life of the stand could be described as early, no thinning only taking wrong spiecies, and distorted trees. When trees has grown 5 meters higher, that the wanted bole, you start thinning for real. If needed pruning will happen now. For light demanding species like Quercus sp. we would aim for 50 trees/ ha ind the end (DBH 60 cm), meaning that our early thinning would aim at 100 trees/ha. For shadow tolerant species as Fagus sp. we will aim for a end stock of 100 trees/ ha, (now DBH 50 cm) meaning we will thin for 200 trees trees/ha. The difference between the end number and the number we start thinning for, will become small logs, with a fairly good pay. But remember quality - Straight and no knots is what makes the price.
🌲Get my free guide to DIY forest Management: thetimberlandinvestor.com/how-to-read-your-forest-an-intro-to-diy-forest-management
🍁Join SilviCultural for FREE today: silvicultural.com/sign-up/
Excellent blend of genuine knowledge, passion and insight.
I don't mean to be rude but this was a really good video.
You SOB
As an arborist, I appreciate a foresters perspective on tree growth. Thanks for sharing this info!
Your channel has been a great refresher and expansion on what i learned in school. I mostly worked in urban settings and ecosystem restoration after graduation but I'm starting to incorporate more traditional forestry work as well. You've been a great help!
Thank you from Alabama!!!
I love your thinning videos. It's relatable to my situation as I am working with a 25ish year old forest on my property.
Do you have something more along the lines of: Grug cut tree. Grug no cut tree.
Thanks.
Maple that curve like mammoth tusk bad. Make Grug sad. Grug kill maple! Grug happy now.
That made my day lmao
Question: I’ve noticed a significant percentage of my otherwise defect free Red Oaks have a split in the bark at the base of the tree extending three or four feet up the trunk. What causes this and what how badly is this going to impact marketability.
What a great book!
Here in the UK, I would say the principal reasons for thinning softwoods being managed in a clearfell system are:
to concentrate the volume growth on fewer stems so that the mean tree volume is greater, also to concentrate that growth on the trees with the best stem form (by selecting the removal of poorer form trees);
to generate periodic revenue to smooth out cashflow
I don’t really get your point about maximising photosynthetic material, because in a stand situation the trees’ growing canopies will usually occupy all the available space - it is just that by thinning you are reducing the number of those trees so you are increasing the synthetic material each of the remaining trees has, which has the same effect as my first point, that is, concentrating the growth on fewer trees so increasing the average stem volume (and thereby increasing the overall value because, up to a point, larger trees are worth more per unit volume).
It's the classic dilemma between growth per acre vs growth per tree. Canopies will fill in all available space, yes, but trees spaced further apart will increase the total foliar area by opening up the vertical vertex of space. In other words, there is going to be more surface area on a bundle of 3D cones than 2d circles. But yes, often maximizing growth per tree will come at the sacrifice of growth per acre for the reasons you describe (more open space=less foliage), although usually, maximizing growth per tree will also result in higher growth per acre after enough time.
Almost always Id advise people to focus on growth per tree and managing foliage on the basis of live crown ratios of individual trees, but it still needs to be balanced with per acre growth.
@@thetimberlandinvestor OK yes, that is an interesting point about the 3D nature of the canopies, but another factor is the efficiency of a particular species at using the available light, which is why larch trees (tamarack in your part of the world) require a deeper crown and therefore need to be thinned more heavily to maintain individual tree growth than spruce or fir. Thinning is an inexact science, more of an art!
I would love to see a digitised copy of that book!
Fascinating! Thank you
Great topic. I have a little forest in ADK and I have no idea how to maintain it. Looking forward to get some ideas in your book.
Need to show examples on sites.
Thank you for this video. I'm currently starting the process of trying to rejuvenate a family member's hardwood stand. It was intensively logged almost 30 years ago, and the conifers have all but taken over the understory. Outside of a handful of promising patches, there are very few young hardwood stems. The conifers have grown in so tightly that even shade tolerant species like sugar maple and beech aren't having success, and the conifers themselves are all developing poorly.
Anyone want to weigh in on the pros and cons of a total purge of the conifers, vs just thinning and leaving some of the prime specimens as the dominant understory trees? My concern with leaving any is that the fast growing conifers will simply outpace the hardwood stems, and we'll be back in the same position in another 10 years.
I think you’d be surprised how fast hardwoods can grow, and having those conifers for competition makes them grow straighter/fewer branches. Releasing any hardwoods too early will turn their upward growth to sideways growth, reducing their value. It might even depend on the soil - can’t make them grow where they don’t want to
@@neonnavajo Thank you. To address your point about the soil, before the logging took place, this was a naturally hardwood-dominant forest. And currently, anywhere that the conifers haven't taken all the light and space, the hardwood seedling/saplings are present. I don't believe the soil conditions are unfavourable to the hardwoods.
My theory on why the conifers became the dominant understory tree is simple: deer. We don't have many farm fields out here to supplement the diet for whitetails. I believe the browsing pressure on the hardwood saplings is high. This led to the unbrowsed conifer saplings winning the competition for space and light.
At this point, the hardwood seeds would be basically starting from scratch in most areas. But if I purge all the conifers this fall, then so will the residual conifer seeds. So they will be growing up together, and I can manage the mix/density in subsequent years.
My concern is that the conifers would again win the fight for light and space, but you're saying that the hardwood seedlings should be able to hold their own? That sounds promising. Thank you!
I guess the key is to try to manage the deer problem.
Cool. Keep it up!
you may have just saved me 50 years worth of growing. (we only get one shot at it!)
🇺🇸🇩🇰😀👍🌳Hello from Denmark.
Nice work
Nice
Actually The headline should say "How NOT thinning WILL ruin your Hardwoods"
You can still get quality hardwoods from not thinning, it will just be slower. However, thinning at the wrong time will ensure none of your hardwoods will have a nice, clean stem.
@@thetimberlandinvestor When talking about broadleaves / hardwoods, the rule is that the with of the ring, plays no or little role for the technically quality of the wood. All of us should remember, that greed is the way to poverty. When tending a young stand of broad leaves, you should keep a high number of steems, to ensure, that branches are killed by the shadow from neighboring trees. In general you should aim for a clear bole, length as 1/3 of the total height of the mature tree. When we have a clear bole of this length - (Could be helped with artificial pruning of branches). From here you just thin hard / strong. In the first thinning I would aim for a remaining number of trees, not bigger than twice the number of trees to be clear cut in the end. Some will argue, that you will lose increment, by thinning this radical. Thats not case. The effect on the increment is that your primary trees - the one destined for a sawmill, each and every on will grow a little more. "Surplus" increment will happen in the ´2 story. The 2 story, should be tended by regularly harvest for energy wood. The life of the stand could be described as early, no thinning only taking wrong spiecies, and distorted trees. When trees has grown 5 meters higher, that the wanted bole, you start thinning for real. If needed pruning will happen now. For light demanding species like Quercus sp. we would aim for 50 trees/ ha ind the end (DBH 60 cm), meaning that our early thinning would aim at 100 trees/ha. For shadow tolerant species as Fagus sp. we will aim for a end stock of 100 trees/ ha, (now DBH 50 cm) meaning we will thin for 200 trees trees/ha. The difference between the end number and the number we start thinning for, will become small logs, with a fairly good pay. But remember quality - Straight and no knots is what makes the price.